PDA

View Full Version : Is Vista a Dead End for Gamers?



ytareh
10-21-2007, 10:05 AM
Just been running this OS(Home Premium) for the last week.Apart from some very snazzy ,nice screen savers Im unable to see why ANYBODY would want Vista .Man Im sorry i sold my XP Pro disc and serial number along with the pc it was on.
Some complaints -a small sample!
Many tasks take 2-10 times longer eg uninstalling a program,system restoring,even startup!
If you install a game into the default Program Files you can do NOTHING with it not even add skins ....
If you didnt disable all the auto updating crud you would hardly ever get to use your pc as someone said recently....
The background services RAM usage is at least double if not triple XPs and perhaps x10+ Windows 2000!!!Id say a non 2gig min Vista pc would be dog slow....Most of the extra 1gig is 'wasted'....
Default Vista driver for X-Fi Extreme Gamer causes Blue Screen of Death !!!!!!!!!Ah come on Microsoft!?

In a quick check amongst 12-20 onliners last night in a mega mission none used Vista and more than one had uninstalled it.
Apparently theres new code being added to the DX10/Vista set up to FORCE x4 Antialiasing minimum which will make anything under an 8800 (even an 8600)useless/obsolete
I know Urufu is a big proponent of Vista but Im having serious buyers remorse !!!Can anybody offer some hope for the future!!!???(Was XP really like this in the good old days when first released?)

BrewsterPilot
10-21-2007, 10:11 AM
You, my friend, are a whiner.
No offense, but whining like this over an OS, without having done anything to help it? XP wasn't perfect the day it was released, it took many updates and service packs to get it up to its current standard. Read some tweak guides and do something, and you'll notice Vista isn't as **** after all. For me, Vista even improved performance in some tasks.

-HH-Quazi
10-21-2007, 10:15 AM
I do not remember XP being like this when it was released. And you are correct. There are only a few that seems to have a handle on Vista & get good performance out of it.

I am glad MS extended support for XP for an extra 10 months. But there will come a day when they will stop its' support. So if I were you I would truly try to be patient and learn how to use Vista now since you have already gotten rid of you XP disk and have Vista already installed.

BrewsterPilot
10-21-2007, 10:17 AM
Start here:
http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13708

ytareh
10-21-2007, 11:08 AM
I had most of that done already Brewster it was generally good practice even for XP.I also had the sidebar/welcome screen/UAC etc disabled.....I could not recommend a gamer install Vista unless he had a least a year or twos 'tweaking' behind him...And if its that much trouble for such little or no gain why bother-unless you have to!

VW-IceFire
10-21-2007, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by ytareh:
Just been running this OS(Home Premium) for the last week.Apart from some very snazzy ,nice screen savers Im unable to see why ANYBODY would want Vista .Man Im sorry i sold my XP Pro disc and serial number along with the pc it was on.
Some complaints -a small sample!
Many tasks take 2-10 times longer eg uninstalling a program,system restoring,even startup!

Haven't noticed that at all.


If you install a game into the default Program Files you can do NOTHING with it not even add skins ....

Its true...they locked Program Files down. The average user doesn't make changes here except when they royally screw stuff up (I do tech support and let me tell you that deleting stuff that "they didn't think they needed" from Program Files is close to the top of problems that people have. Unfortunately they didn't factor in our needs. Simple fix...know about this problem and either disable UAC or install the game to an alternate directory. Thats what I did.


If you didnt disable all the auto updating crud you would hardly ever get to use your pc as someone said recently....

Err...why? I still have updates on the same way that I did XP SP2...set to notify but not download or install. This is the safest if your a power user and want power when you want it. For the average user its better to just do it seamlessly otherwise they will never update and get hit by umpteen numbers of vulnerabilities.


The background services RAM usage is at least double if not triple XPs and perhaps x10+ Windows 2000!!!Id say a non 2gig min Vista pc would be dog slow....Most of the extra 1gig is 'wasted'....

Its true...and on the surface it looks bad. I thought so too so I did some reading. The reason the extra memory usage is there is because Vista aggressively caches software that you use. Notice that although the RAM use is quite high...everything still is quite snappy and applications that you use every day start in rapid fire when you access them.


Default Vista driver for X-Fi Extreme Gamer causes Blue Screen of Death !!!!!!!!!Ah come on Microsoft!?

Why blame Microsoft here? Creative has NEVER been able to write stable drivers...they have some of the worst drivers in the industry and let me tell you that I AM a Creative fanboy and have really loved their products but they have so many driver issues from Win95, 98, XP, and now Vista. Nothing new here. What Microsoft did do is redo the whole interface for sound and that HAS caused most vendors problems...but seemingly everyone else has already figured it out.


In a quick check amongst 12-20 onliners last night in a mega mission none used Vista and more than one had uninstalled it.

Thats a very scientific sample http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Apparently theres new code being added to the DX10/Vista set up to FORCE x4 Antialiasing minimum which will make anything under an 8800 (even an 8600)useless/obsolete
I know Urufu is a big proponent of Vista but Im having serious buyers remorse !!!Can anybody offer some hope for the future!!!???(Was XP really like this in the good old days when first released?)

You've misread that information. DX10.1 is where 4x anti-aliasing was proposed. I'm not actually sure if thats going to make it but basically the idea is to make DX10.1 more like developing for a console where features are specified in a very specific and exact way. It'll likely be minimum 4x antialiasing set on by default sort of like how XBox 360 does it...or PS3...or Nintendo Wii. As there are exactly zero DX10.1 products on the market at this point its not a factor. It will not affect 8600 users like myself...ever....not have any impact. The new cards should be beefy enough to do this. It may even benefit game developers that are using the DX10.1 codepath.

XP really was a dog when it came out. I was an early adopter of XP and I am an early adopter of Vista. XP had driver problems out the wazoo (Creative Soundblaster AWE64 was one such product...with blue screens actually...wow somethings don't change http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). Thing is that most people either don't remember anymore or they bought into WinXP after most of the problems had already been sorted out. I'd say that XP was only really popular about a year and a half after release. Vista isn't even out a year at this point so its not worth crying doom and gloom over just yet.

There is a SP1 on the way and drivers and support is getting better. And for all of the problems I've had almost no problems myself at all. Heck I even decided yesterday that I'd play some old games like StarCraft (circa 1999) and it works fine.

There is allot of hullabaloo about Vista right now and most people are buying into either the hype from the people that really like it or the people that detest and hate it. The truth is, as always, somewhere in the middle. Vista is not a flop at this point and its not a huge success either. Its about average and its what you'd expect from a Microsoft OS. My assumption is that Vista will continue to get support and updates that will bring it up to the success that WinXP was within the next 12-16 months. Everyone will have forgotten the initial pain and will start appreciating the fact that we finally have an interface that is properly 3D accelerated and doesn't corrupt screen contents while the CPU is busy (Linux and Mac OS have been doing this for ages) and has integrated search and proper content preview that actually works well that Linux and MacOS users have been enjoying for a while now.

Its not all bad...its not all good. Ultimately the decision to use it is of course up to you but do get some things straight please. That will help you the most.

JG52Uther
10-21-2007, 12:11 PM
I am very happy that I don't buy into the 'latest greatest thing' philosophy.I was late to XP,and I will be (very) late to Vista.

Freelancer-1
10-21-2007, 01:09 PM
I don't see why vista should be any different from anything MS launches prematurely, buggy and practically useless. Not just MS, of course, but thats who we're discussing here. Stockholders say jump and the Board of Directors tell the corporate big wheels who's jobs depend on keeping investors happy, to do it.

Standard operating procedure.

That said, I believe Vista has potential to be a fine O/S. It's just not worth the hassle to deal with right now. The 'Public as Unwitting Beta Tester' corporate mentality is just the accepted practice these days.

I have no need of Vista at this time as it's not, IMO, an improvement over XP. But I will be giving it a close look when SP1 is released.

If you intend to stay with windows as an O/S, then sooner or later, you will have to join the Vista crowd. May as well learn to work with it instead of griping about it. There is lots of info and work-arounds out there if you care to look.

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2007, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by ytareh:
Just been running this OS(Home Premium) for the last week.Apart from some very snazzy ,nice screen savers Im unable to see why ANYBODY would want Vista .Man Im sorry i sold my XP Pro disc and serial number along with the pc it was on.
Some complaints -a small sample!
Many tasks take 2-10 times longer eg uninstalling a program,system restoring,even startup!
If you install a game into the default Program Files you can do NOTHING with it not even add skins ....
If you didnt disable all the auto updating crud you would hardly ever get to use your pc as someone said recently....
The background services RAM usage is at least double if not triple XPs and perhaps x10+ Windows 2000!!!Id say a non 2gig min Vista pc would be dog slow....Most of the extra 1gig is 'wasted'....
Default Vista driver for X-Fi Extreme Gamer causes Blue Screen of Death !!!!!!!!!Ah come on Microsoft!?

In a quick check amongst 12-20 onliners last night in a mega mission none used Vista and more than one had uninstalled it.
Apparently theres new code being added to the DX10/Vista set up to FORCE x4 Antialiasing minimum which will make anything under an 8800 (even an 8600)useless/obsolete
I know Urufu is a big proponent of Vista but Im having serious buyers remorse !!!Can anybody offer some hope for the future!!!???(Was XP really like this in the good old days when first released?)

many things to look into here

first would be to go to control panel, and then to "performance information"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/perf.jpg

That's my window for it. I "only" have 3 GB of RAM, and that's my low score. Anyway. See the stuff on the left? See what you can see with those things. Turn off indexing. Go to power settings and set to high performance. Shut off all sorts of visual effects you don't need. Don't run Aero

Then turn off the UAC

check these links

http://pctuneuptips.com/tips/vista_tweaks/?ref=insert

http://www.petri.co.il/tweaking_window_vista_performance.htm

Vista isn't the hopeless mess it seems. Personally I don't like it (still) but as I get more and more used to it I find that it allows me to do everything I did with XP. WinME may have been initially worse. Maybe. But Vista will do what you want it to do, you just need to bash it on the head until it recognises you as the Boss. That's a needless PITA, I know

VW-IceFire
10-21-2007, 01:22 PM
BBB462cid: What kind of ram do you have in there? The final number seems to be an overall number between performance and total size as I have 2GB of DDR2 1066mhz and I get 5.9 for RAM.

x6BL_Brando
10-21-2007, 01:26 PM
Program Files... The average user doesn't make changes here except when they royally screw stuff up ..I do tech support and let me tell you that deleting stuff that "they didn't think they needed" from Program Files is close to the top of problems that people have.

That ranks up there with that other top "duh" moment, when you say "Was it important? Yess!! Then you had it all backed up? Noooooo!!! " http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif A wallet-warming moment, for the techie at least! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I've a mate who was forever altering Program Files, pruning he used to call it, lol. I think he developed the habit while using 98SE, when a crash & re-install wasn't exactly unusual or particularly time-consuming. How glad we were when XP came out, even if it cost me a new (series of) joystick(s) when my M$ FFPro 'lost' it's software and shift function.

I would never say XP really worked well until SP2, but we learned to roll with the punches and appreciate an OS which can, literally, stand up for months on end. Right now I'm near to an annual format and ghost session but I keep putting it off. Sure the folder's grown a bit fat & slow, but it's still up. It's very secure, intrusion-wise, to the tune of a good router and 30.00s worth of good software and runs IL2 pretty near full-pelt.

Call me sad or whatever, but I just use my rig for web-stuff, communications and flight-sims of the Russian flavour. I've no tackle that needs Vista and no desire to up-grade to top-end hardware yet, in the sense of the DX10-genre. I should be dipping into it to see what it can do, how it works, but I don't have the curiosity or something needed to make me say Oh Goody, a new OS from Microsoft!

It's just personal choice. A 'no blame' stance on either side of the situation.

B

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2007, 01:29 PM
I actually forget the brands...I'd like to say PNY but that could be my last PC http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

I'm not convinced that the performance scores increase on a 1:1 basis. In other words, if I put in more or better RAM, I'm not sure my score would go up as high as yours. I get the feeling the scores all relate more to each other than to a baseline. Even the way they present the info screams "Spend more money!" to me

Whirlin_merlin
10-21-2007, 02:29 PM
OK folks I'm looking to buy a new machine in the next few weeks and I'm a bit vista nervous.
I'm not very techno savy, how complex is this tweeking buisness?
Now I know some may scoff at me but really when making such an expensive purchase should I have to go around 'tweeking' to make it right, shouldn't it be fine straight outa the box?
Could someoe explain this prog' files buisness, does it mean I have to select a different path to install any game I might want to 'adjust' in future (skins, mods(no not for IL2) etc)?
Will this effect patching?

Yours quite baffled.

IAF_Phantom
10-21-2007, 02:48 PM
VW-IceFire, you seem to be quite knowledgeable about Vista, what about the performance hit that was measured in the SimHQ comparisons between XP and Vista? I think it would we especially interesting to the community regarding the OpenGL support and performance, since Oleg claims IL-2 is OpenGL optimized and so will be SOW:BOB.

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2007, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
OK folks I'm looking to buy a new machine in the next few weeks and I'm a bit vista nervous.
I'm not very techno savy, how complex is this tweeking buisness?
Now I know some may scoff at me but really when making such an expensive purchase should I have to go around 'tweeking' to make it right, shouldn't it be fine straight outa the box?
Could someoe explain this prog' files buisness, does it mean I have to select a different path to install any game I might want to 'adjust' in future (skins, mods(no not for IL2) etc)?
Will this effect patching?

Yours quite baffled.

There's nothing "broken" in Vista. It is "fine" out of the box. It does what it's designed to do very well. Vista is just not optimised for gamers. To make it more suitable for gaming, you need to change some options. All you're doing is making choices here about how you want it to do what it does, you're not doing anything out of the ordinary as far as the PC goes, you're just selecting the most advantageous settings for your application

The program files business is very simple:

Do not allow games to install to the Program Files folder simply select a different folder. that's as complex as it has to be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Right click your desktop, select "new", then "folder"

right click the new folder, select "rename". Type the word "games" in the box, and hit enter

open your hard drive. Drag n drop the empty "Games" folder into the drive

Now when you install any game, browse your harddrive (probably "C:", and you should see a directory tree or list of things on the drive anyway) and double click the "Games" folder to set the path to that folder. Now install the game. Your game is now installed to that path, and not the default one. Very easy

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2007, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by IAF_Phantom:
VW-IceFire, you seem to be quite knowledgeable about Vista, what about the performance hit that was measured in the SimHQ comparisons between XP and Vista? I think it would we especially interesting to the community regarding the OpenGL support and performance, since Oleg claims IL-2 is OpenGL optimized and so will be SOW:BOB.

I'm not Icefire, but what about it? The comparison is the truth

Icefire isn't saying Vista is better for gaming right now in general, or for this sim specifically.

SeaFireLIV
10-21-2007, 03:29 PM
I have no intention of getting the outrageously expensive Vista until IL2 forces me to! And XP was outrageously expensive when I got that!

5 years before it was 80 and 5 years later it still is! What the?! I even still had to pay that price for my daughter`s PC. Was in my view criminal and he makes sure he sucks every penny.

Well, we`re not all got cash freely falling from our backsides. gates can keep waiting.

VW-IceFire
10-21-2007, 03:54 PM
Yep there is a bit of a hit with 3D performance in general. OpenGL seems to suffer to varying degrees more than Direct3D does. Its definitely there...absolutely true.

What I have noticed is that every time a comparison is done the difference gets smaller. So I think ultimately the performance hit from Vista is going to more or less iron itself out if the trend continues. If it doesn't then at the moment it will just be "almost as good".

VMF-214_Pappy
10-21-2007, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by BrewsterPilot:
You, my friend, are a whiner.
No offense, but whining like this over an OS, without having done anything to help it? XP wasn't perfect the day it was released, it took many updates and service packs to get it up to its current standard. Read some tweak guides and do something, and you'll notice Vista isn't as **** after all. For me, Vista even improved performance in some tasks.


You sir have no idea how horrible vista is and the experience some of us have went through,

It should have been code named Windows FU, not vista.

BrewsterPilot
10-21-2007, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_Pappy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BrewsterPilot:
You, my friend, are a whiner.
No offense, but whining like this over an OS, without having done anything to help it? XP wasn't perfect the day it was released, it took many updates and service packs to get it up to its current standard. Read some tweak guides and do something, and you'll notice Vista isn't as **** after all. For me, Vista even improved performance in some tasks.


You sir have no idea how horrible vista is and the experience some of us have went through,

It should have been code named Windows FU, not vista. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must be lucky then. But Vista works http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif for me!

Dagnabit
10-21-2007, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by ytareh:
Just been running this OS(Home Premium) for the last week.Apart from some very snazzy ,nice screen savers Im unable to see why ANYBODY would want Vista .Man Im sorry i sold my XP Pro disc and serial number along with the pc it was on.
Some complaints -a small sample!
Many tasks take 2-10 times longer eg uninstalling a program,system restoring,even startup!
If you install a game into the default Program Files you can do NOTHING with it not even add skins ....
If you didnt disable all the auto updating crud you would hardly ever get to use your pc as someone said recently....
The background services RAM usage is at least double if not triple XPs and perhaps x10+ Windows 2000!!!Id say a non 2gig min Vista pc would be dog slow....Most of the extra 1gig is 'wasted'....
Default Vista driver for X-Fi Extreme Gamer causes Blue Screen of Death !!!!!!!!!Ah come on Microsoft!?

In a quick check amongst 12-20 onliners last night in a mega mission none used Vista and more than one had uninstalled it.
Apparently theres new code being added to the DX10/Vista set up to FORCE x4 Antialiasing minimum which will make anything under an 8800 (even an 8600)useless/obsolete
I know Urufu is a big proponent of Vista but Im having serious buyers remorse !!!Can anybody offer some hope for the future!!!???(Was XP really like this in the good old days when first released?)
=470&Itemid=29

I dont think Vista is a dead end for gamers, in fact it will prove to be the opposite.
As I mentioned a while back, Microsoft is (claiming) to rededicate itself to all things gaming, and including some good hardware, as well as software. They are going to be coming out with new models of their Sidewinder controlers, though so far I have only seen a Sidewinder gaming mouse.
I bought a new Vista PC last Feb, and I have had no problems, aside from having to wait a few weeks for some of the drivers that I needed, which wasent the fault of Vista/Microsoft.
As gamers, most of us want machines that will run anything we throw into the disc drive. We want good looking, as close to realistic graphics as we can get, and good frame rates.
And the good news is that this is where things are going for us. But it wont be doing it with XP, so we might as well get used to that idea.
If you want to run the new games that are just showing on the horizon now it is going to take more powerful machines with different software than what has been available. I believe DX-10 is going to make a big difference (it already has) Technology isnt going to stand still whether we want Vista or not.
Here is an article about K.O.T.S. and DX-10 that some may find interesting.

http://www.elite*******s.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id

Theres alot of tech stuff here but it gives you an idea of what is going on now, and the near future.
Dag

Airmail109
10-21-2007, 09:29 PM
I know people getting 20 percent more framerates in IL2 with a well setup Vista

-HH-Quazi
10-21-2007, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
I know people getting 20 percent more framerates in IL2 with a well setup Vista I do not know of any people getting that much of a performance increase using Vista vs. XP. But I have heard that they have from reading reviews & other forums. And I think it will only get better in the long run.

As soon as the first service pack is released I believe I will do the dual boot thing and start mucking around with Vista. What gets my gord is that I will have to install more memory to do so. Oh well. K-sara-sara

Whirlin_merlin
10-22-2007, 01:11 AM
TY BBB462cid, you are a gent!

Bewolf
10-22-2007, 01:32 AM
I think it's a matter of game optimisation. Tried Bioshock on XP, then switched to Vista and "boom"...smooth as silk. Don't expect that from older games, really. But for the future I think Vista won't do all that bad.

capt_frank
10-22-2007, 08:05 AM
If you intend to stay with windows as an O/S, then sooner or later, you will have to join the Vista crowd. May as well learn to work with it instead of griping about it. There is lots of info and work-arounds out there if you care to look.

In a nutshell.

Petomer
10-22-2007, 08:09 AM
NO, vista isnt! games work fine on vista! jst morons (unlike urself) who cnt adapt do difference! its very simple!i have instlalled dozens of games on to my computer with vista! old and new! not a single problem!

TgD Thunderbolt56
10-22-2007, 08:35 AM
So, basically it seems that if I have a tried and true OS and don't have the inclination or werewithall to "learn' a new OS language, then I should stay with XP for the next year?

Done. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-22-2007, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
TY BBB462cid, you are a gent!

Oh, that's debatable

Glad to help

Urufu_Shinjiro
10-22-2007, 03:05 PM
Wow, a vista thread that I didn't get in the middle of flameage, wonders never cease, lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

BTW, Icefires first post pretty much sums up my position as well.

DustyBarrels77
10-22-2007, 06:54 PM
linux's chance to grab the lighting from ms!

JG6_Oddball
10-22-2007, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by DustyBarrels77:
linux's chance to grab the lighting from ms!

it already did...ive been playing the il2 demo on ubuntu http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif working a small bug out with 46 and kubuntu.

S!

jarink
10-22-2007, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
I'm not convinced that the performance scores increase on a 1:1 basis. In other words, if I put in more or better RAM, I'm not sure my score would go up as high as yours. I get the feeling the scores all relate more to each other than to a baseline. Even the way they present the info screams "Spend more money!" to me

I think I read somewhere or another it takes into account not only the amount of RAM, but the actual performance of the RAM (including page file performance if you're don't have a lot ot physical RAM). So, you could have 4 GB of old DDR RAM but still have a lower score than with 2 GB of newer, faster DDR2.